improving students’ vocabulary and listening comprehension...
Post on 19-Jul-2018
277 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Improving Students’ Vocabularyand Listening ComprehensionThrough Read Alouds
David ChardUniversity of Oregon
Successful Learning ConferenceJune 26, 2006Sydney, NSW, Australia
2
Oregon Project Staff
Scott Baker, Ph.D., Principal Investigator,Pacific Institutes for Research
David Chard, Ph.D., Co-PrincipalInvestigator, University of Oregon
Lisa Howard, Curriculum, ProfessionalDevelopment, Project Coordination
Janet Otterstedt, Assessment, DataAnalysis, Project Coordination
Doris Baker, Curriculum Development Ben Clarke, Assessment
3
Pennsylvania Project Staff
Lana Edwards, Ph.D., Co-PrincipalInvestigator, Pacific Institutes forResearch
Eve Puhalla, Project Coordinator,Pacific Institutes forResearch/Lehigh University
Sabrina Terrizzi, Project Assistant,Lehigh University
4
Story Read Aloud Project
3-Year Project Year 1: Develop and Pilot Curriculum Year 2: Implement Curriculum Year 3: Implement Revised Curriculum
•Explore curriculum “enhancements”•Vocabulary•Academic Language
6
Project GoalEnhance 1st grade students’ comprehension of text using:
A “read aloud” approach anchored in “repeatedreadings” of narrative and information texts
Focused comprehension instruction/practiceResearch-supported comprehension strategiesEmphasis on higher level thinking skills
Targeted vocabulary instructionTier 1, 2, & 3 words (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002)
Rich “student talk” about textsDialogic interactions between teacher and studentsStructured interactions between students
7
Reader-orchestrated Strategies: Previewing/Predicting Making connections Monitoring and clarifying Question generation Summarizing/retelling
Teacher-orchestrated Strategies: Question asking/answering Cooperative learning Graphic/semantic organizers/story maps
National Reading Panel (2000)
Comprehension StrategiesSupported by Research
8
Vocabulary“Tiers” of vocabulary words (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002)
Tier 1: Strategic”/Basic wordse.g., snore; curious
Tier 2: “Bonus” wordse.g., slumbering; continue; peculiar
Tier 3: Domain-specific words (low frequency)e.g., predator; scutes; carnivore
Explicit instruction; “enriched” practice
Depending on the“tier,” instruction occursbefore, during, or after reading
9
Tier 2 Selection (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002)
Importance and utility Characteristic of mature language users;
appear frequently across a variety of domains.
Conceptual understanding Provide precision and specificity in describing
a concept which students understand.
Instructional potential Can be worked with in a variety of ways so students
can build rich representations of them and of theirconnections to other words and concepts.
10
Promoting Student “Talk”
Group ResponsesThumbs up, Thumbs downEveryone, think to yourself …
Follow-up Responses Agree?/Disagree? Why?Who has a different idea?
Book Club PartnersTake 30 seconds and tell yourpartnerTurn to your neighbor and tell. . .
11
Curriculum Structure
9 two-week Units (plus a Pre-Unit)
Thematic units (Science content: Living Things)
Pre-Unit: Frogs (AMPHIBIANS)
U1: MAMMALS U4:REPTILES U7: INSECTSU2: Bats U5: Crocodiles U8: LadybugsU3: Elephants U6:Turtles U9: Butterflies
2 books per unit (1 information/1 narrative)
Narrative: Old classics as well as new favoritesInformation: A variety of styles
12
Curriculum Structure6 to 7 lessons per unit (3 lessons in Pre-Unit)
Information texts: 3 lessonsRead/Discuss 200-300 words of text each lesson
Narrative texts: 3-4 lessonsRead • Discuss • Discuss • Read
30-minute Lessons5-10 minutes of “before reading” activities10-15 minutes of “during reading” activities5-10 minutes of “after reading” activities
Suggestions for additional lessons
13
Organizing FrameworksInformation Texts• KWL:
• What do we think we know about the topic?• What do we want to know about the topic?• What have we learned about the topic?
Narrative Texts• Story Elements/Personal Response
• Who is the story about?Main Character/Character Clues and/or Setting
• What happened first/next/end?• Did I like/not like the story? Why?
14
Curriculum Materials• Books (20: 10 Narrative and 10 Information)
• Lesson PlansDetailed plans with “teacher talk” for lesson prepAbbreviated plans for lesson delivery
• Story Elements Chart
• Story Retell SheetsStudent copies/Teacher transparencies
• KWL Chart
• Information Retell SheetsStudent copies/Teacher transparencies
• Vocabulary Cards
15
“Repeated Reading”: InformationText
Lesson 1:Prepare to read (preview, purpose, prime--K, W of KWL
Chart)Read 200-300 words (often selected portions of text)Review L of KWL Chart; Start retell practice
Lesson 2:Review info/vocab covered in Lesson 1 (with book/chart)Read another 200-300 wordsReview L of KWL Chart; Continue retell practice
Lesson 3:Review info/vocab covered in Lessons 1 & 2 (with
book/chart)Read another 200-300 wordsReview L of KWL Chart; Do complete retell
16
“Repeated Reading”: NarrativeText
Lesson 4:Prepare to read (preview, purpose, prime)Read entire book (minimal stops)Practice personal response; Vocabulary introduction
Lesson 5:Discuss story (main character; what happened first)Start retell practice
Lesson 6:Discuss story (what happened next; what happened end;
character)Continue retell practice
Lesson 7:Read entire storyDo a complete retell
17
Two Studies: One Per YearStudy One Major
Question
Does the readaloud interventionwork in a wholeclass instructionformat?
Study Two MajorQuestion
Do pull-outbooster sessionswork for at-riskstudents?
18
Study One Sample
Oregon 7 intervention classrooms (3 schools) 5 comparison classrooms (3 schools)
Pennsylvania 15 Intervention classrooms (4 schools) 15 comparison classrooms (3 schools)
Five students per classroom 3 low performers 2 average performers
TOTAL: 110 Intervention and 100Comparison Students
19
Study One Measures Narrative retell (SNAP) PROXIMAL Expository “retell” PROXIMAL Intervention vocabulary test
PROXIMAL Gates-MacGinitie Level PR: Listening
Comprehension & ReadingComprehension subtests DISTAL
TOLD-P:3 Oral Vocabulary subtestDISTAL
20
Study One Hypotheses
ProximalMeasures
DistalMeasures
Significant
Not Significantbut Positive
Trend
Treatment StudentsComparison Students
21
Study One AnalysisProcedure
HLM: three levels (student, teacher,school) School was the unit of random assignment
Two covariates: PhonemicSegmentation Fluency andComprehension Total
22
Study One Results
PROXIMAL *Narrative retell: .38
ES Narrative
Comprehension Total *Expository retell: .39
ES Expository
Comprehension Total Content Vocabulary (p
= .07)
DISTAL *Gates Reading
Comprehension: .36 ES Gates Listening
Comprehension Told Oral Language
23
Student Retell Sample
S: (…) had a little frog, came in a littlepackage, and when the big frog was meanto him…And he keep doing mean things tohim, and the kid kept saying, “Don’t domean things to him,” and then he keepsdoing it, and then he keeps saying that, andthen when he did it again he said to gohome. And then when he, um, mmmm…
24
Student Retell SampleS: Uh…the big frog, the big frog was mad at the little frog…
he kicked him off in the water… and the boy cried for himthey looked everywhere for him. They couldn’t find him,he went back home, he laid on his bed and he heard a littlefrog sound, then it was him jumpin’ on… in the window,onto the big frog’s head. He picked up the box and heopened the box and there was a baby frog and he… and…the big frog was mad at him, and they went outside to play,and they went sailing away… mmm… and they (…) andthey, the big frog kick him off, and then they were and hecouldn’t find him, and the boy cried, and the frog felt bad,and the little boy went home crying, and he went to… uh…his room, and… uh… he heard a little frog sound, and itwas him jumping into the window and he jumped onto thebig frog’s head. And that’s the end.
25
Purpose of Study Two
Implementation of instructionalenhancements (Booster sessions) Strong vocabulary emphasis
Effectiveness of revised Read AloudCurriculum (still in the process ofanalysis) Tighter curriculum Tighter study controls
26
Sample Study Two
Five Schools in NortheasternPennsylvania 11 Intervention Classrooms 5 Comparison Classrooms
Seven Students per Classroom 4 low performers 3 average performers
27
11 Classrooms(Intervention)
5 Classrooms(Comparison)
33 average
44 at-risk15 average
20 at-risk
VocabularyBooster
22
NoVocabulary
Booster
22
NoVocabulary
Booster
20
Formal Use of ReadAloud Curriculum
Independent Accessto Read AloudMaterials (e.g., texts)
28
Vocabulary Booster Session
Explicit Instruction COBUILD approach (Stahl, 1999)
Instructional Intensity and Depth “Bringing Words to Life” (Beck,
McKeown, Kucan, 2002)
Systematic and frequent review
29
Booster Session Format
Provideintegrated andfrequent review
of previouslytaught words
Introduceand reinforcetarget words
from thenarrative
story
Introduceand reinforcetarget words
from theinformation
book
No booster
Day 6Day 4and
Day 5
Day 2and
Day 3
First dayof unit
30
Measures Measures
SNAP Comprehension Skills Number of Utterances Story Grammar
Storybook Vocabulary Assessment(SVA) – researcher developed Target Vocabulary
31
Procedures for BoosterSessions
Teacher TrainingTwo teachers were trained to implement the
Booster Sessions and administer/score the SVA.1 teacher = 2 schools1 teacher = 3 schools
Fidelity14 lessons, 7 per teacher (46.6%)Overall fidelity = 95.57% (77%-100%)
32
Study Two Hypotheses
VocabularyMeasures
OtherProximalMeasures
Significant
Booster Students Experimental Non-Booster StudentsExperimental
Significant
Comparison Students
ProximalMeasures
Significant
33
ResultsBooster vs. No Booster (SVA)
Statistically significant interaction between time andgroup F(1,42) = 36.41; p = .0001
Effect size = .46 (moderate) (Cohen, 1988)
17.23 (14.20)44.68 (18.87)Post-test Mean (SD)
7.41 (6.80)10.64 (8.03)Pretest Mean (SD)
No BoosterBooster
34
ResultsBooster vs. No Booster (SVA)
05
101520253035404550
1 2
Time of Testing
Booster
No Booster
ES =+0.46
35
ResultsBooster vs. Peer Comparison(SVA)
Statistically significant interaction between timeand group F(1,41) = 15.84; p = .000
Effect size = .28 (small) (Cohen, 1988)
35.18 (15.68)44.68 (18.87)Post-test Mean (SD)
18.55 (10.06)10.64 (8.03)Pretest Mean (SD)
Peer ComparisonBooster
36
ResultsBooster vs. Peer Comparison(SVA)
05
101520253035404550
1 2
Time of Testing
Booster
Peer Group
When linescross it usuallyrepresents an
interaction
Peers werehigher atthebeginning
Boosters werehigher at theend
37
Other Proximal Measures(SNAP)
Booster vs. No Booster No effects for other proximal measures
(comprehension, utterance count, storygrammar)
Booster vs. Peer Comparison No effects for other proximal measure
(comprehension, utterance count, storygrammar)
38
And Did They Like it!
What the Students Said Students liked it — they liked knowing the information in
advance because it allowed them to participate in classdiscussion
Some students didn’t think it was fair that they knewthe “stuff” before the other kids did
What the Teachers Said Very excited and wanted to know “what was going on”
in the Booster Sessions Students participated more often in whole class Students understood concepts better
39
Limitations/FutureDirections for Research Limited number of students. Target student identification primarily
based on beginning reading measures. Booster Sessions took place outside of
the classroom. Standardized assessments for language
not as sensitive Relatively short intervention (6 weeks)
40
Conclusions
Evidence of impact Does increase teacher-student
interactions and student-studentinteractions
School constraints on time is an issue Lack of connection to the rest of the
instructional day is an issue
top related